Discussion at a called Russellville City Council meeting Thursday centered around whether there should be flexibility within agreements between the city and owners of dilapidated structures.

The meeting was called to discuss a property located on South Erie Avenue, on track to be razed after the property owner failed to comply with the terms of an agreement with the city to meet a timeline in rehabilitating the property.

Alderman Martin Irwin said the problem with the agreement is that it fails to take into account special circumstances. In this case, he said, the owner is trying to earn a living and fix up the house in whatever spare time he has.

“I don’t have the stomach to raze the property when not so long ago ... I was him,” he said.

Irwin said he took issue with the fact the agreement does not consider financial hardship a valid reason for not meeting deadlines. Although the property owner had not met any benchmarks, he had invested “time, money and sweat” into the home.

As a compromise, Irwin suggested the city give the homeowner six weeks to get the yard cleaned up and complete all work on the exterior of the house.

“The city of Russellville is not hurt by granting a little more time,” he said.

Mayor Bill Eaton said the city staff was given the authority to enter into these types of agreements with homeowners and there must be some respect given to them for enforcement of the contracts.

He suggested if one homeowner was granted leniency, others would want special treatment as well.

Alderman Garland Steuber noted although the homeowner had not met the timelines, he had done a considerable amount of work to the property, including a new roof, roof decking, windows, doors, siding, window frames, electrical work and plumbing.

Steuber said it was evident the owner had not been sitting idle, but had been working. He noted construction projects can often take longer than expected to complete.

The direction of the discussion changed when it was realized the former owner of the property had never transferred a quit claim deed to the man the city has been working with.

Although the two men entered into an agreement for sale of the property, the deed was never transferred out of the previous owner’s name.

When aldermen realized the man with whom the city entered into an agreement was not the legal owner of the property, Irwin made a motion to adjourn the meeting and “let the process take its course.”